Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Corrupting the children

Most parents who choose home education are eventually confronted with the idea that "sheltering their children" - by keeping them out of public schools and the pop-culture mainstream - is doing them a great disservice. It is said that home schooled children will end up socially crippled, unable to relate to the real world, and besides, the schools aren't really that bad anyway, and not letting one's children watch television and the latest movies is tantamount to child abuse, etc., etc..

We've grown used to the conversation. If you, too, are one of those parents, save this video for your friends and family members who try to tell you that you're overreacting:

Comments (27)

But an amendment to a government bill gives faith schools more freedom to tailor teaching to their own beliefs.

Pressure groups claim this amendment would allow faith schools to ignore requirements in the bill to teach it in a balanced way, respecting diversity.

The government has denied it could result in a rise in homophobia.

Mr Balls dismissed suggestions the amendment to the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which was first revealed by the BBC News Website, represented an "opt out" for faith schools.

He told the Today programme: "A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils we believe as a religion contraception is wrong but what they can't do is therefore say that they are not going to teach them about contraception to children and how to access contraception.

"What this changes is that for the first time these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument.

"They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership."

But opponents say this requirement was already in the Children, Schools and Families Bill.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, of the Accord Coalition which calls for an end to what it sees as religious discrimination in school staffing and admissions, told Today he was "astonished and saddened" that Mr Balls had chosen to effectively give faith schools an opt-out.

The case for and against
'Negative'

"If a school doesn't approve of contraception or abortion or homosexuality, then it can give that message or it can omit certain facts.

"We know there are some faith schools which take a very negative view."

Under the plans, all schools are to be required to teach children aged seven to 11 about relationships including marriage, same sex and civil partnerships, divorce and separation under Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education.

Secondary school pupils are to learn about sexual activity, reproduction, contraception as well as same sex relationships.

The bill states the subject is to be taught in a way that promotes equality, accepts diversity and emphasises both rights and responsibilities.

This requirement could have been problematic for schools governed by religions that are specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception. About a third of schools in England are faith schools.

In a statement on its website, the Catholic Education Service says the amendment, which was tabled by Children's Secretary Ed Balls, was secured after a period of "extensive lobbying".

But it refused to comment on the issue.

Liberal Democrat Children's spokesman David Laws said the amendment was "a serious and undesirable U-turn".

'Homophobia'

He told Today: "This government hasn't had a bad record over the years in trying to challenge things like homophobia.

"Now, with this amendment it's undermined a lot potentially, that it's been achieving. I think it will upset many people who believe that in today's Britain we should have a society where the taxpayer should not be subsidising prejudice."

The British Humanist Association is also among those who have criticised the amendment.

Its chief executive Andrew Copson said the amendment effectively gave a licence to faith schools to teach sex and relationships educations in ways that were homophobic, gender discriminatory and violated principles of human rights.

Jeff, what's the source of this kind of video? Clearly, you don't typically have several movie cameras set up in a public school classroom. It was staged. (Though it might have been staged to re-create an actual non-movie event.) Is this some sort of promotional video, and if so, made by whom, promoting what?

Thankfully I have fought the good fight and finished the race for now. All 5 of my home educated kids are done, with the last in college. Now we are gearing up to help with the grandkids so I guess I had better stay in shape for the next battle.

Thanks for this Jeff. Now I get to take these videos over to my Facebook page and really ruin everyone's day.

I suppose this is only a perspective you get once you have children in schools, even if you went to public schools yourself. There are things that go on at school with which I disagree, but I don't really have a problem sending my children to school. Things that would distress me would be like my children not learning math or learning to read. Sometimes when I read things like this I wonder if this is a case of not wanting to go to the inner city museum for fear of seeing a drunk, homeless guy or if it is a case where folks truly believe that public education is one hedonistic exhibition after another.

This is going to sound cliche, but children really do pick up the values their parents give them. Certainly, there are some children that totally reject their parent's values, but I'm sure that is true in the homeschool scene as well.

Children generally pick up the values of adults around them, especially adults who speak with authority. When the adults around them present a range of different and conflicting values, the children are forced into going with one set or another before they have the capacity to make a proper judgment. More specifically, if they spend 8 hours/day with their teacher, and 4 hours with their mom, they are going to be put in a situation where they may incline toward putting more trust in the teacher than in Mom. But this is unnatural: it belongs in the parent's natural sphere of authority that the child accepts the parent's judgment over that of others, until the child has grown into the capacity to judge for themselves . Presenting this sort of dichotomy to a child too young to have that capacity damages the parent's natural authority over the child, and violates the parent's natural right to be the primary teacher of morals and values.

Which implies that any parent who goes along with the above while disagreeing with the teacher's values is failing to fulfill his/her own proper parental role.

I notice that MZ just makes generalizations. He doesn't say anything about the specifics of the post: I.e. Is it appropriate for the children to be introduced to this topic in this way and in this setting?

"A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils we believe as a religion contraception is wrong but what they can't do is therefore say that they are not going to teach them about contraception to children and how to access contraception."

Have the British always believed that the state and the state alone is the source of morality, which must be enforced by legislation, and taught to all children, or have the British ever been tolerant of dissenters?

I can't watch streaming videos, but on homeschool in general--there are problems with it but the 'socialization' one isn't really. Unless you are a hermit in the mountains, your kids are going to get out, either within the neighborhood or to church/other social functions. The bigger problem is that most parents are simply unable to homeschool, due to time/educational constraints. I'd venture to say most adults couldn't pass an algebra test off the top of their head, and also that most adults don't have the time or inclination to relearn everything they've forgotten from their own school days. Homeschooling up to about 4th-6th grade is probably doable by any family where one parent is able to stay home, but past that point most parents are going to want to find a decent school somewhere.

One problem with the public schools is the cultural marxist nonsense that passes for history and social studies, but that can be dealt with. The bigger problem is the lack of any serious standards and discipline. Although finding a nice suburban (read: white/asian) school will help, that's more because of the quality of the students; such schools are still unable to just kick out the idiots and the troublemakers. If they did, then the disparities between public and private schools would largely disappear. Until then (don't hold your breath) private school is the best option for those who can manage it.

Have the British always believed that the state and the state alone is the source of morality, which must be enforced by legislation, and taught to all children, or have the British ever been tolerant of dissenters?

See this article by a journalist on the Left in Britain. I seen this, as Yahoo has a direct partnership with this website and seems in some way to endorse its politics.

Jim Murphy wants more religion in British politics. If we don't clamp down on faith schools now, he might get his wish.

By Ian Dunt

Religion is on all the Labour lips today. First children's secretary Ed Balls got a roasting for allowing faith schools an exemption from equality requirements in the curriculum. Then Jim Murphy, Scottish secretary, set up a speech tonight calling for religion to have a greater role in politics and for Labour to appeal to religious voters.

Despite all this, it's still too early to worry about a distinct shift towards religion in the British political culture. Labour just made a calculation. It realised it would upset religious groups more with the double-blow of the equality bill and the children, schools and families bill than it would upset equality activists by passing the amendment today.

For a long time, Labour was ruled by two men whose political senses were sharp enough to realise the folly of allowing religion into the political realm: Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell. That thought process still pertains, but the threat from the religious lobby is becoming increasingly substantial. It may remain marginal now, but it grows in strength every day, because of faith schools.

The Labour government is the first under which the number of faith schools has increased. Under the Tories, their number actually fell, but once Blair was installed in Downing Street the government launched an all-out defence of their status. As education secretary, David Blunkett said he wanted to 'bottle their magic'. Ruth Kelly, a member of Opus Dei, was similarly supportive. Ed Balls walked into his department critical of faith schools but emerged enchanted. It's actually very difficult to discover how many faith schools there are. But take a look at academies. A third of them are religious, and in almost every single case they replaced normal community schools. Faith schools are on the rise.

That they should be treated so uncritically by government is a damning indictment of its long-term calculations. These institutions are an initiation ritual for the ghettoisation of mankind. And if we want a solution, we need to take a look at France.

France is not usually the first port of call when looking for a harmonious society. In the middle of its society there stands the secular state, a respectable notion that has become oppressive and tyrannical in France. It is a weapon wielded by the dominant majority against racial and religious minorities. Beyond any ethical concerns, this has done remarkably little for French society.

The banlieues - ghettos or suburbs depending on your inclination - rose up in rebellion a few years ago, but that was just a fiery demonstration of the deep resentment in French society. Walking around Paris, Londoners find it disarmingly white, except that France, in actual fact, has a greater Muslim community than Britain. Outside the centre, in the banlieues, a bountiful multicultural mix thrives, but without material wealth, or the opportunity to gain it, and without representation, either in the media or politics. The secular state has become the aggressor. It denies people their identity and banishes them in their own country. It is, at heart, a fascistic notion, which demands the individual gives himself up to the country. It is government interference, of the sort civil libertarians like myself rail against every day.

Britain's laissez faire approach to immigrations and multiculturalism may have seen French intelligence agents brand us 'Londonistan'. It may see areas branded Muslim, or Turkish, or Polish. It may see the emergence of cultural artefacts we find distasteful, like the burkha. But it reflects British freedom, and the ability this country gives you to live your own life, free from the interference or judgement of the state. It is also, despite the rabid anti-immigrant sensibilities of the tabloid press, a far more successful model than that practised in France, and a far more ethical model for governing a multicultural society.

Except for one thing: education. In education, we must respect and adopt the French example.

The British legal system knows how to treat children: as humans incapable of giving consent. So why doesn't the government? Allowing parents to force their children into faith schools is just really child abuse, as Richard Dawkins ably pointed out last year. It forbids them the freedom and space to develop their own thinking and decide if they wish to sign up to the varied mumbo jumbo religions espouse. Schools are where we create humans capable of deciding what they do with their freedom, not a factory for churning out new versions of ourselves, together with our prejudices and intellectual fallacies.

This is not an exemption from the traditional resistance to government interference. This is to personal freedom what Keynesianism is to capitalism. It is interference designed to expand freedom. Without intellectual autonomy how can we create adults who can manipulate, comprehend or value their freedom? Or to be more specific: when Balls takes the need to respect diversity away from the curriculum of faith schools, he takes away the freedom of vulnerable, young children to explore their desires without being crippled by the stigma and idiocy which faith will impose on them.

Unless we take a far tougher approach to faith schools, the next generation could emerge more religious, more divided, more irrational than voters are now. Children below the age of 18 should live like the French. Adults over 18 should live like the British. Before the age of consent, the secular state rules.

I want to point out, re. Catholic/Christian schools in Britain: They receive govt. money, and that is (for now) the excuse for telling them they have to teach about contraception and homosexuality. (And as PB's article shows, some think that isn't enough--they should be banned even from giving their own moral opinion on these matters at the same time.)

Watch the money. It's a very dangerous lure and leads to government control. Certainly in these other countries where govt. money for Christian education has been taken for granted, the ostensibly Christian schools are being co-opted by the anti-Christian state. And how many of these schools will now be able to get out of that system or will even think of doing so?

Schools are where we create humans capable of deciding what they do with their freedom, not a factory for churning out new versions of ourselves, together with our prejudices and intellectual fallacies.

Schools are where we create humans capable of deciding what they do with their freedom, not a factory for churning out new versions of ourselves, together with our prejudices and intellectual fallacies.

No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher. Luke 6:40

Which one would you believe?

The secular humanists churn out students that reject and despise organized religion. That might theoretically indicate a judgment on their students' part that religion is appropriately rejected. In reality, though, hardly a single one who so rejects religion can adequately express what the religions actually teach, and certainly not why, so in reality they have no notion of what they are rejecting. So really what they are doing is parroting and mimicking their teachers' prejudiced unbelief, without understanding. And this is called "freedom", rather then "churning out new versions of ourselves"? Ha! Double HA!

I think, by the way, that the video is not "staged." If it was a teacher training video, that seems to explain how it was made: They set up the cameras in the classroom of someone they thought would do it the way they wanted it done, to use as a model, and then filmed her discussion with the students, edited it, and made it into this video. That seems pretty straightforward, actually.

One thing that strikes me is how limited the actual coverage is of what is going on in the class. It seems obvious that that's not the end of the unit. The teacher is going to "go somewhere" with this, presumably, and tell the students more. This is just the introductory lesson. But they don't show the rest of it. My own opinion is that this is to make it all look "neutral." Traditionalist parents will still be upset by it, but lots of parents who see that will think, "Well, she's not pushing them. She's just eliciting their ideas. And they already have lots of ideas from TV." So I think the presentation has been deliberately truncated at that point.

Homeschooling up to about 4th-6th grade is probably doable by any family where one parent is able to stay home, but past that point most parents are going to want to find a decent school somewhere.

I guess we're hardcore. Both my wife and I normally work outside the home (she part-time), and we're doing this all the way through. I have to admit, however, that if we had a good orthodox Catholic high school nearby, run by a traditionalist order, we'd definitely consider it. But we've come to appreciate home schooling not only for the moral, spiritual and academic advantages, but also for the lifestyle it affords, and the sense of purpose it gives us as a family. What started out as an emergency measure has turned out to be something extremely positive in itself.

Socialization does have its challenges, especially for homeschooled boys who need men in their lives, and whose own fathers may be working long hours so that mom can be home. That can be a real trap resulting in some effeminacy in boys: let young families be on their guard. Fathers who can't spend time with their boys every day need to find some substitute masculinity in the form of grandfathers, uncles, friends or neighbors. We are fortunate in that I don't work 60-80 hour weeks anymore and have adequate time at home. Otherwise, socialization in a home school setting is far less problematic than than the un-socialization parents would have to do otherwise.

"Socialization." I put scare quotes around it for good reason: the entirety of the issue is made-up and pushed, without cause, for scare tactic purposes.

Socialization ought to refer to the process of becoming more and more capable toward the ultimate social environment of the adult world. It should NOT refer being more capable of interacting in the highly unnatural, highly controlled, highly processed environment of modern, mass-producing, mass-marketing schools.

If you look at the actual data, actual results of schools vs homeschools, here is what you find: homeschool kids do not stand in line very well. And they don't typically get involved in large-team sports as much. Nor do they accept every comment by every person in authority without asking why far more readily than their schooled peers. Nor do they follow bully groups as well, nor give in to bullies as readily. Nor do they participate in weird, pointless fashion statements as much. Nor do they jump on the bandwagon of brand new intellectual theories without critique as often.

On the positive side, here's what they do: they generally speak respectfully in adult-style language to strangers and authority figures. They converse with a wide range of adults in intelligent manner, engaging topics that they may not be thoroughly grounded in with respect, caution, and interest. They ask when they don't know and they speak up when they do. They DO get involved in large-group and community activities regularly (just not large-team sports: how many adults play on large teams?) They do fold into jobs seamlessly. They engage the political sphere with enthusiasm, in much higher percentages than their schooled cohorts.

To put it in a nutshell: more often than not, homeshooled young adults engage other adults as junior peers, as apprentice adults, neither abasing themselves in servile inferiority nor putting on false macho equality. Which is exactly what socialization ought to produce. If we allowed the actual results to speak for themselves, "SOCIALIZATION" would bespeak a harsh and strident condemnation of public schools. Homeschoolers have nothing to be defensive about on this score.

Socialization does have its challenges, especially for homeschooled boys who need men in their lives, and whose own fathers may be working long hours so that mom can be home. That can be a real trap resulting in some effeminacy in boys: let young families be on their guard. Fathers who can't spend time with their boys every day need to find some substitute masculinity in the form of grandfathers, uncles, friends or neighbors. We are fortunate in that I don't work 60-80 hour weeks anymore and have adequate time at home. Otherwise, socialization in a home school setting is far less problematic than than the un-socialization parents would have to do otherwise.

I don't see why the male influence issue is uniquely problematic for homeschooled boys since most public schooled boys have very few, to no masculine role models at school these days. Most of the men that taught at my schools were not the sort of men you'd have an aspiring middle class son emulate.

"Socialization." I put scare quotes around it for good reason: the entirety of the issue is made-up and pushed, without cause, for scare tactic purposes.

Granted that the problem is wildly and hypocritically exaggerated by the enemies of home schooling, whose best alternative is Snoop Doggy Dog and Company. But socialization isn't a non-issue. There is such a thing as socialization, and it doesn't happen all by itself. Ideally, children interact on a regular basis with people of all ages and many walks of life. Public school certainly doesn't provide this for the majority. Home schooling has a far better upside, but for modern families it still requires a certain consciousness and deliberation to make it happen.

Look, we've been homeschooling for 12 years (our oldest is fifteen), from the very beginning, and have been very active with homeschool groups and families over the years. I know boys who have been seriously harmed by the virtually-absent working father syndrome - including one tragic case of a home schooled boy raised almost exclusively by his mother and three or four older sisters, adopting their feminine manners of speech and conduct into his teen years - and it is something that can be avoided if one is aware of the danger and is flexible about solutions. Not to make a virtue of necessity, but having the wife work part-time and the husband work a normal 40-hour week is a good solution for some families. Anything to avoid too much OT and/or a second job for the father is worth considering.

I don't see why the male influence issue is uniquely problematic for homeschooled boys since most public schooled boys have very few, to no masculine role models at school these days. Most of the men that taught at my schools were not the sort of men you'd have an aspiring middle class son emulate.

That's true. I don't think I said that socialization is uniquely problematic for homeschooled boys, only that it is a challenge and is something that homeschoolers should be conscious about. The options are as follows:

1. Socialization by rogues, rakes, gangsters, jocks, drug dealers, coaches and other undesireable males in the public school context.

2. Socialization by mothers, aunts, grandmothers, and female friends of mothers in an isolated home school context with the father mostly absent.

3. Socialization by mothers and fathers, priests and pastors, uncles and grandfathers, trusted male friends, and teachers (music, martial arts, firearms, etc.) in a balanced home school context.

As to whether option #2 is superior to option #1, I cannot say. But let homeschoolers strive for option #3 and be aware that, for most families, it takes some foresight to achieve.

The woman who introduced me to Catholic homeschooling had a husband who was a child psychologist. She told me this about socialization -- kids learn to socialize by watching adults, and practice it on each other. If they learn how to socialize from each other, it's Lord of the Flies.

If we put thirty kids, all 7 or 8 years old, in a room together and told them to teach each other how to multiply we'd be nuts. Same for learning empathy, compassion, understanding, tolerance -- one adult supervising twenty kids feeling out how to relate to each other with little guidance is not healthy socialization.

I attended a public school (though at the time it was one of the best in the state) while my brother was homeschooled his entire life. Though by the grace of God I have advanced my education (by struggling through a classical education style, having to rid myself of my Dewey-based educational system I was raised with), I find it quite interesting when I look to the social status of my brother and myself.

I did all the social high school activities while my brother was limited. Yet here we both are, almost a decade after my graduation and 6 years after his, and he is the socially stable one. I am very cold and abrupt with people, though I wasn't this way in high school. I have a hard time in crowds and an even harder time creating friendships. My brother, on the other hand, is much more balanced than myself. Though this is anecdotal, I find it interesting that many of my high school friends, all of whom are anywhere from 25-30 at this point, still go out and drink, have parties, and act exactly like they did in high school. There has been little to no growing up. Alternatively, many of the people I know who were home schooled when I was in high school act like adults; they are married (or engaged), working on advanced degrees or advancing in their careers. Many of my public school friends (myself included) are still struggling; some don't see it as a struggle while I do. The difference is I snapped out of my childish fog years ago and I'm overcoming the consequences.

This is not to say that someone who is homeschooled will always develop the perfect personality or know how to socially adapt (sometimes a parent can shelter their child), nor is it to say that someone who attends a public school will have social problems or live in a constant state of arrested development. Instead, I am pointing out that when done properly, someone who is educated at home, especially if the education is classical, will have a greater advantage in social situations than someone who attended a public school.

As it stands, though I did enjoy going to a public school, I fully intend on educating my children at home. I intend on teaching them Greek and Latin. I intend on having them read the Great Books. And I intend on letting them socialize and be kids. By the time they're ready to be educated, I should have a PhD (or my MA at the very least), so I feel I'll be far more qualified than any public school teacher.

But I would encourage all parents to consider homeschooling. If the burden is too much for one parent, might I suggest a collective group? If one parent is skilled in math while another is skilled in English, perhaps that the math oriented parent could teach the group on Tuesday while the English oriented parent could teach on Thursdays. It's a version of a private school, but one that is still legal in most states because it's considered homeschooling.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):